I happened upon this old post of Dr. Barnett on Jared Diamond’s Collapse and would like to take this moment to share with readers both Dr. Barnett’s comment and my response.
Thumbed through Jared Diamond’s Collapse recently, and while I liked the environmental analysis for what it’s worth, his take on politics and globalization is like looking through a soda straw. It always amuses me how hard scientists freak whenever soft scientists borrow from their fields, but then have no problem prognosticating like crazy about soft science fields like political science. For example, Diamond posts these two, amazingly self-serving maps on page 497. On top is the list of “Political Trouble Spots of the Modern World,” and just below it is the map of “Environmental Trouble Spots of the Modern World.” His two maps are exactly the same, hence his point that environmental problems accurately predict all political trouble spots is “proven.” ... I mean, geez, this is comically bad analysis.
Why am I not surprised that, of Collapse’s single-spaced 592 pages on the history of human civilization and the environment, Dr. Barnett decides to flip through, find the only non-photo visual, and judge a quarter of a million word book on such specious grounds? Oh yeah, that’s why I’m not surprised.
Allow me to enlighten you, Dr. Barnett: Collapse is a tour de force review of 1) behavior and systemic breakdowns that lead to poor societal choices, 2) a look at historic and modern environmental breakdown that followed collapse of civilizations, and 3) a diagnosis of the world today and the threats to modern civilization. Science magazine called it “probably the most important book you will ever read.”
I know the post quoted above is more than a year old, and I know that Tom has been working on his manners and his tone as of late, and in the same post he says he will talk more about it on the air:
At 1pm today I’ll do a live radio interview with a local station in Connecticut from above the garage. It’ll be 18-22 minutes and it’ll be on the book.
Great, and I wish I could listen to the whole thing. But Tom has no follow-up, and the only material I found through google regarding Barnett on Diamond was this piece.
There are many who respond to concerns of overpopulation and resource scarcity that, “human ingenuity has always helped us in the past, so I’m sure it will triumph in the future.” Barnett, and many readers of this blog, adhere to this school of thought. Yet this vein of thinking ignores one very real possibility: that the only reason human ingenuity has succeeded in the past is because people were fretting their face off that the world would end. Said otherwise, it is possible that Malthus’ prediction has not come true because his warning was so dire and influential.
SIDENOTE: If you understand the title of this post—good for you!
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « Rwanda Redux?
- » UK Declares Terrorists Criminals
COMMENTS / 9 COMMENTS
Muscovyte added these pithy words on 11 Dec 06 at 3:31 amI have enjoyed reading Collapse and hearing for the first time about that Barnett fellow. Judging by the fact I could not figure more then one thing on his website he is probably former CIA or like to pretend to be one. The only thing I excerpted from the website was that Barnett looks a lot like protagonist of the “American Dad”
cartoon.
To rephrase that Barnett fellow, I found Collapse non-nearly-tragic-enough good. Am I the only one who finds it very disturbing that in the conclusion Dr. Diamond as an example of families that took a good care of their own and failed to react to the changing environment not inhabitants of Three Mile Island or Chernobyl but his relatives wiped out during Holocaust? Is he trying to build on his personal experience or attempts to redefine war as an ecological disaster? After all, humans are part of nature. If you ever read his Why is Sex Fun? book, you’ll understand.
Muscovyte added these pithy words on 11 Dec 06 at 3:33 am
This is Thomas Barnett.
sembawang squid added these pithy words on 11 Dec 06 at 2:52 pmBarnett appears to me to be an exceedingly flip, simplistic and ultimately very dangerous thinker. His vision for the future is horrific—the US as some sort of big-brother corporatist globocop, forcing WalMarts and Starbucks down the rest of the world’s throats for their own good…
For some reason I cannot fathom, his “shtik” seems to resonate with a lot of highly placed officers and corporate types. I guess at some level they all would love to see a souped-up modern version of the Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie.
BesottedTom added these pithy words on 12 Dec 06 at 12:19 pmCurzon,
I haven’t read Diamond’s book (though my interest is now piqued and I will be buying it in the not too distant future), so I cannot debate the matter with you on a very good level. But after reading Barnett’s full post on the subject, I believe the comically bad analysis that Barnett was referring to was the fact that because several political trouble spots were missing from Diamonds map, his analysis didn’t really prove anything.
As far as the “thumbing through”Â? of the book, I agree with you for two reasons, Barnett makes it sound like he only took as long to read the book as took to sit on the toilet, and Barnett hates it when somebody does the same to him about his books (as I would also).
I also wish there was a follow-up.
But why bring up a two year old post in the first place?Muscovyte,
Barnett is a military geostrategist. He is not former CIA and I doubt he wants to be, but he has worked with that agency and many others. He is also the author of The Pentagons New Map (Another thought, maybe all these guys with their different maps suffer from a sort of map envy). I highly recommend reading it; he has some very valid points.Sembawang squid,
My first thoughts while reading his book was the same as yours. I changed my mind after a few chapters. I think you missed his vision of the future or maybe you haven’t read his book. I am thinking the latter. He does not call for the U.S. to be a “Â? big-brother corporatist globocop, forcing WalMarts and Starbucks down the rest of the world’s throats for their own good”Â?. He actually says that since we are the only superpower left, we have a responsibility, like it or not, to the rest of the world. We have the responsibility to not bully other countries just because we can, and we have the responsibility to help the people of countries whose leadership exists for their own purpose and greed. In no way should we do this alone. Other countries that are already part of the global economy need to be involved also. One of those countries is the up and comer China, and I have to say I agree seeing I am currently serving in Iraq, and China will be using the majority of Iraqi oil as will India. If not the majority, it will still be more than what America will get from here. And our soldiers and Marines are dying for it.
As far as his “shtick”Â? not resonating with a lot of “highly placed officers”Â?, you are correct. Most of the highly placed officers that are currently in the pentagon are cold war leftovers. Once the Soviet Union collapsed, they felt they had to find a new enemy to keep the war machine going. China. (Most) Younger officers that have grown up in the military post cold war don’t feel the same. They tend to agree with Barnett’s view on things.
As far as the “Â?corporate types”Â? go, he had strong ties with Cantor Fitzgerald prior to 9/11.
As I said in the beginning of my post, I will purchase a copy of Collapse. Then, at least, I will be able to compare the two authors on a more educated level.
And by the way, I found this blog which was linked to another blog that was linked to Thomas Barnett’s blog. That makes you only 2 links away.
Curzon added these pithy words on 12 Dec 06 at 1:26 pmThanks for the long comment. As to “why bring up a two year old post in the first place?”, I was googling for something entirely different about Dr. Diamond and came upon Barnett’s post. I read it—and was appalled—and when Barnett had nothing but this post trashing the book in his entire blog (which I think was one of the best books I’ve ever read), I felt compelled.
As for linkage between this blog and Tom’s, yes, we have “cross-collaborated” on much, and Chirol in particular has frequently referenced his work. But his attitude really sticks in my craw.
sembawang squid added these pithy words on 12 Dec 06 at 1:54 pmbesotted – good comments. I confess to not having read any of Barnett’s books—I have perused his blog many times, however, and my impressions are based on what I’ve gleaned therefrom. Maybe it’s the self-promoting, almost hucksterish tone of his blog that makes me less than receptive to his views. I’ll go to the library and give “Pentagon’s New Map” a try.
If you can say, where are you at in the sandbox? As my handle indicates, I’m a USNR type, and like most of the rest of us have not yet been recalled. Good luck over there.
BesottedTom added these pithy words on 12 Dec 06 at 2:51 pmCuraon,
Fair enough. I can easily understand where you are coming from.Sembawang,
He can come off as arrogant, or maybe he is just very self assured. Maybe it’s a bit of
I kind of figured you were Navy. Who else would proudly call themselves a squid?
This time I am very lucky. The “zone”Â? I am in this time happens to be very “green”Â? if you catch my drift. This is my third time to this country. My living conditions improve considerably every time I am here, but the Iraqi people’s gets worse. Talk about irony.I believe I will be purchasing Mr. Kaplan’s book as well as Dr. Diamond’s. I may as well; I have plenty of time to read.
BesottedTom added these pithy words on 12 Dec 06 at 2:59 pmI meant to say “Maybe it’s a bit of both”.
